Short for ibidem, meaning “in the same place”.
Well, if you’re not sure of your own name … ! 
Julie
Pet peeve of mine: people who use the latin abbreviations in speech.
They can use the full latin expression, if they must, that’s just pretentious. But using the written abbreviations in everyday speech is ignorance, and we hate that around here.
So don’t say “i.e.”, what are you , Old Macdonald? Say “namely”, or “that is”!
'ja ever notice that people who mispronounce etc. as “exetera” also write it as “ect.”?
You didn’t say the reason this abbreviation annoys you, but if I had to choose a reason to be annoyed at this abbreviation, I would say that the letter z isn’t even in videlicet to begin with! How many other abbreviations introduce letters that aren’t in the word or phrase they are supposed to abbreviate?
I’m astonished.
“no.” as an abbreviation for “number” comes to mind. But that probably harkens back to some non-English language where there is an o in the word.
Are you aksing a question or making a observation?
Peaze.
[Get Shorty]
I.e., e.g., fuck you!
[/Get Shorty}
r_k: If we’re going to get into those, there’s hundreds, especially in law.
Even though it’s not an abbreviation and has been used in English for a long time, many articles in scientific journals italicize via, as in “…suggests the product forms via a tetrahedral intermediate…” I think it would seem pretentious anywhere else, but in scientific journals it actually seems to make things clearer.
Off the top of my head, “pounds” (unit of weight, not currency) is the most glaring: its abbreviation is “lbs.”
When English speakers read “lbs.” as pounds, it’s analogous to reading “viz.” as namely. Both are supposed to abbreviate Latin words, but the former has been given an Anglicized plural form while the latter has been given an extraneous letter due to errors in manuscript copying, as pointed out in the link provided by moriah.
More Latin: lb. abbreviates libra, “pound.”